Motivations for the non-belief in God

That's not what the bible says jar. I find it difficult to understand how it is possible that a person such as yourself who believes that the bible is an anthiology of fabrications can possibly concieve that any one part of the bible is true and use it as a reference to falsify the full context of scripture.Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.

Well, Guido, I think it is exactly what the Bible says and you can see my reasoning in the thread Message 1. I don't think you will be able to point to where I said "that the bible is an anthiology of fabrications" but it doesn't much matter. Even if everything in the Bible (and scripture certainly does not refer only to the Bible and scripture as written in the Bible specifically does not refer to the Bible) was but tales told around the campfire the issue is whether the message is valid.The goddlet described by most Christians is nothing more than a tiny cruel petulant child, and I hardly think something that insignificant could have created the Universe we see.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ok, I will check that thread. I cannot point to where you said it on the forum, but I can refer to our chat sessions.If the bible is an anthiology of tales, then these tales are not litterally true. Since the message of the bible is based on the litteral interpretation of the character of Jesus, it cannot possibly be valid unless we accept this interpretation. On the contrary, the pain and suffering in the world points directly to the awesome God that the bible describes. (Not that God delights in pain and suffering).

The message of the Bible is very simple.No one starts out Damned.You are charged to try to do what is right and try not to do what is wrong.It really is that simple.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Guido writes: This is certainly a big motivation for my non-belief in God.Kakariki

i dispute this, this is how you see it not the reality of it, jesus doesn't have to exist for the message of love from god to be real or the spiritual truths to be trueyou just see it that way because you see things in black and white, eather its all true or none of it is, i mean was there a real musterd seed or did samson really kill a thousand people with an asses jaw bone?

The full context of scripture declares a message of salvation through Jesus Christ. If we remove the validity of it, then the message is lost.No. It wasn't a real mustard seed.
Yes. Samsan really did kill a thousand people with an ass's jaw bone.

If you had read the bible carefully enough, you would see that the Christians are rewarded for their good deeds, and the non-Christians are punished for their bad deeds. No where in the New Testimant does it say you can get to heaven without Jesus Christ.

Love those double standards.Once again, what you describe is not GOD but some petty tyrant.If you behave while at EvC, but then you get banned for eternity because you did not vote the way that I wanted in the best admin thread, would you consider that the actions of a fair and kind Admin?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

If you had read the bible carefully enough, you would see that the Christians are rewarded for their good deeds, and the non-Christians are punished for their bad deeds.

---

But Christians aren't punished for their bad deeds, nor non-Christians rewarded for their good deeds? Strange.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Guido Arbia: But aren't the apologists just defining terms in a way that guarantees the result they want?The argument I see on the thread so far is this:

Moral Christians are Christians.
Immoral Christians are not really Christians.

​

Immoral atheists are atheists.
Moral atheists are not really atheists.

​

Ergo, Christians are more moral than atheists.

Why should anyone find this argument convincing?It looks like a 'just-so' picture to reassure the already persuaded..Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Wrong, once again. This has nothing to do with Christian apologetics whatsoever. There are some moral and immoral christians as there are athiests, but most likely those christians that are immoral are not really christians. If they are, it is between them and God.

You're anology is invalid. God punishes us because we deserve it. Chosing not to vote in your favour is not a criteria for banning someone, but spamming and trolling is.

To get back towards the topic, it is attitudes like that that often provide the motivation for a non-belief in god. When people describe a god that is arbitrary, petty, cruel and dishonest is there any wonder that folk are motivated to ignore it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But my example was very accurate and valid and that your response actually supports what I said.You imply that Christians are saved but others are not. So you claim that goddie punishes those who do not vote for him, who are not Christians.You go on to say that behavior should be the criteria for sanctions. I agree. I believe any reasonable approximation of GOD would judge based on behavior and not whether the person voted for him in some popularity contest.As it says in Matthew 25, I believe GOD will judge us on what we have done, not whether we believe in Him, profess Him or vote for Him.The idea that there are True Christians and NRCs is just silly.It is the really silly images of god that so many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists present, as well as the out right lies they tell and the demand that believers must first check their brains at the door that motivates folk not to believe in GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion